Two Michigan Jails Face Class-Action Suits for Banning In-Person Visits
In a disturbing trend, local jails are discontinuing in-person visits in conjunction with adopting fee-based video calling services. Based on 2015 data, the non-profit Prison Policy Initiative found that “74% of jails banned in-person visits when they implemented video visitation.”
The jails in Michigan’s St. Clair County and Genesee County ended all in-person visits in 2017 and 2014, respectively. They now contract with telecom companies—GTL/ViaPath in Genesee County and Securus Technologies in St. Clair County—to provide phone and video calling services.
On March 15, 2024, both jails were sued by family members of detainees, including children and parents who accused county officials of contracting with the telecom providers to generate profit from “commission” kickbacks. Due to the in-person visitation ban, fee-based phone calls, video calls and electronic messaging were “the sole way for the families of people detained in the jail to talk with their loved ones.”
Genesee County’s contract with GTL/ViaPath guarantees that the company will pay at least $240,000 in commissions and incentive payments annually, plus a 20% cut of revenue from video sessions. Phone calls are $.21/minute (the maximum allowed under federal rules), video calls cost $10 for 25 minutes and e-messages are $.25 each—plus various ancillary fees.
In St. Clair County, Securus also charges $.21/minute for phone calls, $12.99 for a 20-minute video call, and $.50 for each e-message. The county receives a 78% kickback on phone revenue with a guaranteed minimum annual payment of $190,000, plus a $100,000 “technology grant” and 50% of video calling revenue. Those payments totaled over $400,000 in 2022.
The jails offer one free video session and/or a free five-minute phone call to each detainee every week. But the free video session must be scheduled in advance, and there are limited available time slots. The lawsuits, both filed in state courts and both seeking class certification, accuse the counties of participating in a “quid pro quo kickback scheme” to exploit prisoners and their families.
The complaints note that “the ability of children and parents to associate without undue government interference is a bedrock of our culture and values,” adding that it was for this reason that state constitution “enshrines family integrity and intimate association as ‘fundamental rights.’” Therefore, Defendants cannot constitutionally “conspire to prohibit in-person family contact as part of a scheme to make money.”
Plaintiffs claim that jail officials purposefully ended in-person visitation in order to monetize communication between prisoners and their loved ones. They quote a Genesee County commissioner who said, “That video visitation is going to work … A lot of people will swipe that Mastercard and visit their grandkids.”
Citing a report by Physicians for Human Rights, Plaintiffs liken “[t]he effect of separating a child from a parent … to torture,” and that the primary means of mitigating “the harm of parent-child separation by incarceration is through regular in-person visitation.” Contrary to best correctional practices, GTL/ViaPath and Securus try “to incentivize local officials to eliminate in-person visits” so as to increase “the use of high-cost video calls and traditional phone calls.” In fact, the companies’ contracts specify that video calling services may be discontinued if they fail to generate sufficient funds—threatening the revenue stream that they enjoy from kickbacks if there are competing alternatives, such as in-person visits.
At least 15 other Michigan jails have banned family visitation; all contract with GTL/ViaPath or Securus. In other jurisdictions, however, officials have reversed such bans after acknowledging the benefits of in-person visits—including Texas’ Dallas County, Oregon’s Multnomah County and North Carolina’s Mecklenburg County.
The suits seek to certify a class of “all individuals with a parent or child” incarcerated at the jails since March 15, 2021, or who will be held there in the future. They raise claims under Article 1, §§ 3 and 23 of the Michigan Constitution as well as conspiracy between the county Defendants and telecom companies. Plaintiffs in both cases are represented by attorneys with Public Justice, the Civil Rights Corps and Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers PC in Royal Oak. Said Civil Rights Corps attorney Jeremy Cutting, “We are suing for the right of kids to hug their parents, for the right of families to not be separated for profit”
The class-action complaints seek declaratory relief and an injunction to end bans on family visitation, as well as monetary damages “in the form of disgorged profits from depriving parents and children of in-person visits.” See: MM v. King, Mich. Cir. (St. Clair Cty.), Case No. 2024-24000546-CZ; and S.L. v. Swanson, Mich. Cir. (Genesee Cty.) Case No. 2024-120601-CZ.
Additional source: New York Times